The result was Procedural close; duplicate nomination. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Hughes (soccer) (3rd nomination). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Hughes (soccer) (3rd nomination)]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GauchoDude (talk • contribs) 2008/09/10 23:15:27
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G4 by Orangemike (non-admin closure) – Toon(talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actress who's most notable role was a bit-part on Pleasantville, and has had only other minor/extra roles in non-notable television shows. WP:ACTOR requires the subject to have "... had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions," which this person clearly hasn't had. There is no evidence of a "cult following" or having "...made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." 49 news ghits, none of which appear to refer to her, which makes it unlikely that she qualifies under WP:N, and there is no evidence of this within the article. – Toon(talk) 00:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef blocked sockpuppet of User:Mynameisstanley. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find even one link to support this article. It's a stretch to think that one could compose and co-produce "many hit songs" for people as high-profile as Snoop Dog and not have even one hit on Google (besides this article.) Rob Banzai (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and not notable. Community television deal does not prove notability and article contains much information that is not cited and appears to be advertising. Was prodded but prod removed without appropriate improvement !! Justa Punk !! 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 121.208.248.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a small company. The are few claims (and little evidence) of impact, and only one local news source (the others are press releases). This was nominated for deletion two years ago, but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind its being kept then. CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. Relisted due to verdict of last AfD, which is listed here. First AfD was no consensus with old and now outdated reasons, listed here. GauchoDude (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:VERIFY - notability is claimed but no reliable sources are cited - in fact none of the references mentions the subject at all, even in passing. And there's a serious conflict of interest - the author is the subject's son andy (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus is that this player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, but does meet the general case of WP:BIO. As WP:ATHLETE is a special case of WP:BIO and does not supersede it, the subject is therefore notable. Likewise, WP:FOOTY/N is a special case of WP:ATHLETE, and does not supersede WP:BIO. lifebaka++ 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 3rd nomination, not 2nd. Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. Relisted due to verdict of last AfD, which is listed here. First AfD was no consensus with other bundled players, listed here. GauchoDude (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLord Cornwallis (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. BJTalk 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is redundant to Sarah Palin#Electoral history (before User:Happyme22 removed this section while this AFD was still in process). It is not particularly long and will not get much longer in the near future. Though fixable, it doesn't look nearly as nice as the section in the main article. Redundant. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A disputed prod, and speedied a number of times as spam, under various spellings/hyphenations. The initial Google hits all lead to a commercial organization which has copyrighted this phrase and uses it to label a commercial product; I suggest this is a WP:COATRACK for WP:SPAM, since there are no citations that I can locate that are anything other than a reference to this commercial product. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted. --Masamage ♫ 23:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "hit song" that's not been released. Apparently it's expected to hit number 5 (shall I lay a bet?). As per WP:MUSIC: "most songs do not merit an article". Booglamay (talk) - 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn the article has seen significant improvement over the course of this afd, and I am satisfied with the results. The "delete"s aren't really on any sort of foundation, so I'm calling WP:SNOW too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef and list of differnet uses of the term in popular culture. Most of the article has been tagged with ((off-topic)), and I can't see it expanding beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 19:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability (check WP:FICT and WP:SOAPS). No media coverage, no third-party references, no real world information. A minor fictional character who made a short appearance in a show. Magioladitis (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. henrik•talk 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only sign of notability is the Shine Corporate 'Best Customer Experience' Award in 2008. I haven't been able to quickly find information on the award. Other than that, I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable radio presenter who fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Already been CSDed at least once, but keeps getting recreated and last CSD declined, so bringing to AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply an online game to promote the newest Mario baseball video game. This is an unacceptable split off of Mario Super Sluggers for various reasons. The article is simply a game guide at best, and any relevant content can be fit in a few paragraphs at best on the main article. I've tried explaining this to the editors involved: but they refuse to listen. I've tried redirecting this to the main article, and it just gets reverted. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the above poster, RobJ1981 is wrong. This information is valuable to hundreds if not thounds of children and adults around the world. He also stated Gamefaqs was not reliable, which I disagree with, people can say that Wikipedia is not reliable in the same manner. Once people who care post good and correct information, it is up to the user to consider if it is reliable or not. This article is not a game guide, it is a resource to a collectible card game from Mario Super Sluggers. Not the/and/or video game, but something else entirely. My question is why does he care so much about this page? does he own it? does he need it? he should just lay off and find some others to harrase. Thank you, Daddio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.185.90 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC) — 69.139.185.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Google search turns up nothing. Brougham96 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism with few notable hits that aren't self-titled so-called geneablogs, most serious Genealogists with blogs call them blogs, not geneablogs. Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak , for example, simply used a blogspot account for a while, calling it her blog. ThuranX (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedically written article consisting primarily of long pieces of computer implementation, describing a non-notable search algorithm whose title gets no hits in Google scholar. The article was previously prodded, but the prod was removed by an anonymous IP user. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Individual member of King's Singers. No independent notability under WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/no consensus by Lifebaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[5][6]. Daniel (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited since March 2007, and by looking at the talk page it's clear that nothing has happened that might improve the situation since. As it stands, I can't even verify the article's title is correct (I get more hits when searching for an alternative spelling), let alone the content, which is completely uncited. Shinobu (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm new to nominating articles for deleting. Do I have to ((subst:adw|Meganekko)) ~~~~ all authors manually, or just the first, or can this be botted or otherwise made easier in some fashion? Shinobu (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is too forward looking and speculative at this time, fails WP:CRYSTAL in the very worst of ways. JBsupreme (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Product is currently non-notable. Thought about speedying under a7 but it seems to fall under software category than company/croup Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums in that the only confirmed details are the release date and the titles of a couple of songs. Nothing else that can be reliably said about it at present. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and the arguments at Wikipedia:HAMMER without prejudice for recreation nearer to the time of release. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page, previously deleted as being non-notable, has been recreated. The page as it stands is no more than a dictionary definition. I can only find two sources that directly relate to the subject -- a dictionary definition and the one Derham book cited. I see no reason to think that the article as it now stands is any more likely to be sourced than it was back in June. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom. User:Mywikieditor2007 tried to afd this but didn't do it right. No vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi, two previous james ray pages were deleted as vanity pages, one was even marked for speedy deletion - last year i don't know if the circumstances have changed that his page is not considered a vanity one. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ray has become known in the media and press for talking about “Harmonic Wealth”. This focuses on teaching individuals to create wealth in all areas of their lives: financially, relationally, mentally, physically and spiritually. He claims that his two-day, transformational event helps participants achieve more harmony in all areas of their life. Ray has been known in the media and press? then it goes on the soft sell the harmonic wealth weekend, which, presumably is an expensive seminar. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a group for doctors and dentists who are Christians. Nice, but not important as far as I can tell. No independent sources. A few thousand ghits, most of which appear to be blogs and social networking sites. External links make up much of the content and without the internal and external links it would be a very short article indeed. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Delete Not Notable - loose group of people Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef-Blocked as sock puppet LegoKontribsTalkM 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to establish the notability of what appears to be an unremarkable public park. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Vampires as a subconscious sexual metaphor is something that has been explored in both pop writing and more serious works, but I'm not sure if that warrants this as a separate article from 'vampire'. 129.89.68.62 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. henrik•talk 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of semi-notable at best obscene phrases. It is entirely unsourced, consists mainly of original research, violates our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, and our Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information policy. Therefore it should be deleted from Wikipedia, with the option of giving it to Wikiquote or Wiktionary proposed to those projects. MBisanz talk 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nn website PongPingKong (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - newsworthy - covered by The Guardian (UK National Newspaper) in this article and industry leading blog Mashable in this article. Nickentrepreneur (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.77.59 (talk) [reply]
The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. Not quite /blatant/ advertising, but pretty damned close. Plus dubious notability. 9Nak (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page updated to counter arguments for deletion. Caselex is a high impact service, see award won in 2008 and classification provided by epractice.eu listed under sources. The alliance that has built and supported the service is substantial, however if you are not into European law it may be hard to grasp the value and contribution of Caselex. However the pure fact that the service is supported by the European Commission represents a ground to include the service. The included sources demonstrate the points made in the article. Ellenbeate (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nn website PongPingKong (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod by anon. A local councillor, nothing more nothing less. The article makes no claims as to meeting WP:BIO and there are no obviously available to sources to establish a claim. Nuttah (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article gives the views of "energy analysts" who are only anti-nuclear, a clear POV fork. (This is I believe my first afd nomination, so bear with me.) Simesa (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article while merging the various pro/anti-nuclear debates into one section in Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power. This article represents a fork of that section. Simesa (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a wholesale copyvio from CPA Journal Online, reads like an advert, has no sources (been tagged for a year) and is a generally substandard article. I think its time for it to be put out of its misery. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. I would argue that Middle Schools, being there are so many, are inherently non-notable. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for film not yet made, by non-notable director. VerticalDrop (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Software Freedom Day is notable, celebration by a little team in Hong Kong is not. Timurite (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted. Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been speedily deleted three times now. Its a yet to be released Sega emulator with no assertion of notability whatsoever. Hopefully this can be deleted and salted to prevent recreation. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to SuperAntiSpyware, the software makes no assertion of notability and is nothing more than an advertising vehicle for the company. seicer | talk | contribs 16:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, or at least insufficient consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This did somehow manage to survive a previous AfD, mainly, it seems, on the strength of ILIKEIT, IREMEMBERIT, ITSFUNNY, and similar (non)arguments to keep. Unfortunately, while the article is amusing, there's no reliable source material available about this. "Sources" cited include a Google Groups search, alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead (you can't make that one up!), more Google Groups searches, and some personal-recollection essays not published or fact-checked by any reputable publication. I remember this whole thing too. Yes, it was funny, yes it fires up the nostalgia factor a bit, yes, I got a chuckle out of reading it. But it belongs on a net nostalgia website, not Wikipedia, because we're effectively putting together an article completely out of synthesis and interpretation of primary sources here. That's original research and publication of original thought. Since there are no secondary sources, this problem is unfixable, and the article should be deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed, not referenced, and the article it self does not make sense. A burger does not automatically mean meat, a burger is a patty that cane me made from non-meat sources, so saying a burgerless burger and then saying it has a non-meat patty in it does not make sense. Plus there is already Veggie burger, if anything delete the article and merge with that one. Sugarcubez (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close, never mind, withdrawing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overly narrow criterion for a list. No really clear definition as to what progressive rock constitutes for the former, no sources for either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. I am willing to userfy for any editor interested in merging some of this content to other articles, provided such editor agrees to maintain GFDL attribution, which would require undeleting the history of this page and referencing it in the edit summary when merging content. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where to begin? The subject fails the notability criteria (in general as well as WP:ENTERTAINER), verifiability, and WP:NOTINHERITED (in an admittedly weird reading of it maybe). Article has no assertion of importance/significance that I could see and it was tagged for speedy as such (a tag which the author removed in direct contravention of the advice provided in the tag). The show he was involved in may in fact be notable but, that does not confer notability to him, nor has he been covered in any significant form by reliable 3rd party sources Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to the IMDB proves the notability of the programme, and the individual's (Ben Hymers') notability within said programme. The belief is held that such notability is not in contradiction to WP:BIO. Thankyou. Thomwilkinson (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as blatant spam. – iridescent 18:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This went from being a very short entry about non-notable software to almost blatant advertising. TN‑X-Man 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article also fails both WP:N and WP:NOT just as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combine Forces. See WP:SNOW.
I am also nominating the following related page because it is designed exactly the same way and has exactly the same problems as the former:
The result was Delete as overturned non-admin snowball keep of previous AfD. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the discussion of the page is written as an advertisement for the website. For example, the first sentence of "Concept" states "The Movie Smackdown concept is based on the premise that to succeed in the Internet age, film reviews need to be more fun and more surprising. They need to be, whenever possible, as entertaining as the films they seek to criticize or praise".
A large chunk of this page has very little to do with the website itself. For example, "Evolution (and Revolution) in Film Criticism" has nothing to do with Move Smackdown itself. Rather, it just comes across as an essay on film criticism in itself.
This was nominated for deletion before (obviously). One of the "Keep Votes" (User:CineTex) is obviously a single-purpose account: all four of his edits deal with Movie Smackdown, and his "Keep" vote was a large impassioned essay. Another "Keep" vote, from User:Walkingbillboard, also made all of his edits on the deletion page. Yet another "Keep" vote, from User:Pusster1 made his sole edit on this page. Another Keep Edit, User:Chickflix made their first edit on this page, and the rest of their edits were on the page for Bryce Zabel, the creator of this website. Did anyone look into this at all when making their consensus? CyberGhostface (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article, the web comic Pokémon-X, doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an article. The page is badly written, and badly laid out, as well as most of the work being done by the comic's author themselves (as user ReconDye). It does not have a neutral point of view, nor any cited sources. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to respiratory system, which is of significantly higher quality. Title is unlikely search term, so keeping it as a redirect seems useless. Huon (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable bus accident. This article was written shortly after the accident when it was still in the news but Wikipedia is not a news source and it should have been deleted back then. Creating articles about every road accident that gets into the news would not be a worthwhile venture for Wikipedia. And who, outside of the area that it happened in, actually remembers this accident now? Notability is not temporary. Millionsandbillions (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologisms have no place in Wikipedia. Martintg (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Although the delete votes did not far exceed the keeps, none of the Keep rationales provided a convincing policy justification. For instance, one of the keep voters said "There is a huge universe created by Angie Sage in the Septimus Heap series and fans are willing to read all the information." Factors that Keep voters should have addressed were WP:PLOT, which is part of policy, and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which is an essay but has a lot of influence. The Times Online article cited in the AfD discussion clearly shows that the Septimus Heap series of books is notable, and it is well-justified to have an article on the series, which is what Septimus Heap is. But there was no evidence provided that the Septimus Heap *character* has been addressed and commented on by reliable sources. I am willing to userfy the article for anyone who believes they will be able to add sources and improve the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
article on a fictional character that does note cite notability UltraMagnus (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a Fancruft/Vanity article, unsourced since July 2007, few pages link to the article, mostly Wikiproject links. I don't think this has gotten to the notability level of the Troops fanfilm as well. 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. —Reedy 09:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some essay by a (presumably) former student. Not notable,at least not in this state. Fireaxe888 (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 04:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested (a year and a half ago). Page is just a gallery, which violates WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a photograph gallery. seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This page is nothing but a collection of images, which violates WP:NOT. If it would be expanded to be truly an identification guide (which hasn't been done in its first year of existence), then it would still violate WP:NOT a how-to guide, and it would be at the wrong title anyway. The page as it stands is not an article and can (with its current title) never be an acceptable wikipedia page. Also nominated:
The result was keep. BJTalk 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hospitals are no different from organizations they must pass WP:CORP. Nothing I can find anywhere gives this hospital notability. It can not be called notable because of those it was founded in memory of because notability is not inherited. (Although a mention in that persons bio may be appropriate. Being sold also does not create notability....I mean you have to be kidding! benjicharlton (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete AS per my nomination... benjicharlton (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Clearly not notable as a hospital. (Changed vote below.) Not convincingly notable as Acland Hospital building. A list of works by the architect belongs in and is in the article on the architect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. I extended the debate for a second time to allow time for editors requested to look at this from WP:WPVA. This has happened and they have endorsed the deletion, as failing wikipedia's requirements regarding a combination of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Please note this is not a vote, but a debate related to policy interpreted by informed consensus. Editors whose only or main contributions to the encylopedia are to this debate or the article concerned carry very little weight compared with established editors. See also WP:OSE. Ty 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist. Google search returns only local mentions, no national coverage or other reason for WP:N. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' I find the problem with this entry to be the fact that several of the statements deal with publications that predate google or being able to be easily referenced. The artist does indeed seem to be represented by galleries in California ( under the name Louis St.Louis) as well as New Orleans and the Carolina's and to possess a extensive exhibition record and notable critical references such as ArtForum and ArtPapers. With half of his career in the 80's and early 90's it comes as no surprise that the facts are hard to pin down. The reference to the Ogden Museum not having the artist listed on it's website should not neccissarily negate his being in the collection, and it seems that this article is at the least in need of paring down and cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails the notability criteria, with references to four primary sources (all Estonian press publications) reporting the same single event, which was an interview where he makes some controversial assertion about Estonia while promoting his unpublished book "The Bronze Soldier". Martintg (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, 17-year-old fanfic author, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article beginning "a little-known..." is never good notability-wise. This would appear to be a writer of fan fiction - straight under our notability radar. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 08:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Any subsequent discussion about merging to Champagne socialist, chattering classes, liberal elite, etc is not something for AFD to determine, although it strikes me as a good idea worth exploring. fish&karate 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced dictionary definition, and as we all know Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article topics should be notable. However, it appears that Sword and crown as a module has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Suntag (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems unwarranted, hardly a disambiguation page, scanty defintions, no sources, poor potential for anything useful. Article was previously PROD'ed, otherwise I would have simply done that now. meco (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to ear shaping as a non-admin editorial action. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable variety of cosmetic surgery. Lacks sources. - Icewedge (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 19:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject failsnotability guidelines for academics and people in general. Since the first time this was AfDed, several editors have made efforts to find reliable, 3rd party sources, and none could be found. Basically all there is on this guy are primary sources (his organization's website, various youtube videos, some discussion forum posts). The first AfD was closed as "Needs cleanup but ... Keep for now," but unfortunately without secondary sources the article remain a mess, and will probably stay that way. Yilloslime (t) 06:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]
why?He's ideias deserver's a space! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.137.155 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (A1) (Non-admin closure). MuZemike (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article created today, about a school. Doesn't look like it's very notable. Matt (Talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No more notable than Good Day Tampa Bay which was AFD'd months ago. Microremote (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This crystal ball is sensing that the album non-notable and pre-mature. No reliable sources or much context,. seicer | talk | contribs 02:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by author without improvement. Prod reason: "WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV violations, as well as WP:V." Cliff smith talk 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The crystal ball is sensing that the article is a few years premature, and is pure speculation at best. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but crystal balling. - Icewedge (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serious WP:V issues. The band appears to have been around for a long time, with an impressive number of releases; however, without multiple albums on a notable independent label this doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. If sources can be found to establish notability then fair enough, but I've looked and couldn't spy any. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Ok, so I realize no one actually said "redirect", but the "merge" stance below is what swayed me. I don't know the subject matter, I won't be merging anything, but this title will now redirect to the main Puyo Puyo article, specifically, the characters section. The history of this page will be intact, per GFDL, and for mining for information to expand the Puyo Puyo page. Keeper ǀ 76 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Side character in a video games series. Considerable amounts of dubious content and zero evidence of any kind of notability. --Leivick (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and there is no deadline. Sources have been provided in this discussion to counter the nomination/ sole argument for deletion. Decision accordingly is keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no reliable sources Jessi1989 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has a number of google hits, but many simply as company listings and nothing in depth coverage as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). triwbe (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral + Comment News articles on the company in Western Mail on May 5 2004 as evidenced here [28], June 3 2005 as evidenced here. [29] One mention in South Wales Echo but no proper coverage. This is absolute borderline notability and I can't decide whether it should be kept or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantine (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod deletion. Non notable music label, fails WP:CORP Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep on rotation on a major network meets criteria of WP:Music, and counters the claim by the nominator that the only claim of notability is the MP3 downloads. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without reason. Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Releases not on important labels. Only claim to notability is unreferenced claims of mp3 dowloads that does not make a band notable Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. jj137 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC; no albums on notable labels, no press, couldn't even find any reviews. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. (Currently) non-notable software / software company - fails WP:CORP. No third-party independent references. Article is almost an advert, and there is a potential COI with the author. CultureDrone (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article created for a live album which is a bootleg and not an authorised release from the band according to their official website.link. Article contains falsified information including label and a reference to an Allmusic professional review that doesn't actually exist. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article created for a live album which is a bootleg and not an authorised release from the band according to their official website.link. Article contains falsified information including label and a reference to an Allmusic professional review that doesn't actually exist. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and Redirect to Data (Star Trek). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims cited to unreliable wiki. (well, if there were a References section). Original research for topics' inclusion. Content is mostly plot summary. No citations to third-party sources to establish notability. Unlikely search term. Quintessential example of well-intentioned but ultimately unencyclopedic content better suited to Memory Alpha or some such. --EEMIV (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 16:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for a recently created company. Sgroupace (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to I Need Mine. MBisanz talk 01:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable song by Lil' Flip, fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC#Songs. SRX 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G10 as an unsourced negative bio. I know the subject was supposedly dead, but I think it likely that there is an unknown, possible living target for this article. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax. Google turns up nothing of relevance. Brilliantine (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A recent book. Mostly copy & paste of the publisher's adverts. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. BJTalk 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a silly article that does not meet any guidelines for a notable event. A natural disaster that destroys no property and kills no people is not notable, even if it does displace a moderately large volume of bog. Dzhastin 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, it's blatant, but that isn't a valid deletion reason. You may have noticed it from the tone of my earlier comments. Policies contradict each other, and one can include almost anything if one tries hard enough. It's a problem. Brilliantine (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this was not created as a joke. In fact I failed to realise that such a situation would arise. It only seems to have happened though after it was put up for DYK which surely shouldn't be the case. I created it after witnessing it broadcast on a national news bulletin. The news bulletin itself seemed more concerned about the ecological aspect of the disaster rather than the lack of loss of life. It seems irrational to ignore an ecological disaster if enough people haven't be killed to make it notable. And by coincidence just as I created it it was back in the news again. So it was fairly continual.
This is on the talk page but I'll leave it here again.
OK. First of all. A quote.
"Up to 30,000 people in north Kerry were left without a water supply due to polluted water courses and threatened reservoirs." [34]
That line is referenced by an article from The Irish Times, a national newspaper with no special relationship with County Kerry. 30,000 people is a lot of people, certainly by Irish standards. So a highly regarded national newspaper has reported that 30,000 people have been affected by this occurence. Another reference in the article is from national broadcaster RTÉ, whose news bulletin was how I first came to hear of this.
This article may not be up to everyone's taste but that seems to be because most of the inclination to use local sources which I thought would be a good place to start. There are many national sources available which I have not had time to complete but I thought the inclusion of at least one source from a national newspaper and a national broadcaster would at least appease those who are opposed such "local" events whilst serving to remind that there are easily other references available.
"A news event is notable if it receives significant, continual coverage in sources with national or global scope." Well it certainly received significant, continual coverage in sources with national scope.
Of course the article needs tidying up but I have never claimed that it was perfect. If I used any lines that appeared exaggerated or extreme they were marked with a reference number directly afterwards. After all, it is not a matter of my opinion, I was just referring to what was said in the aftermath of the event.
The idea that the bogslide (a word I have not made up - it is used in the references and is taught in geography classes in schools across the country) closed one road and therefore is not notable is wrong as, if the article were read again, it would become quite clear that much more damage than the closure of one road was caused. --Candlewicke (Talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 - Well that may be true but if that's the case can very many articles be created that refer to Ireland or say to other small countries? The Irish Times and other such newspapers are the highest placed newspapers in the country, you can go no higher from an Irish point of view on news delivery than being national. It seems perfectly irrational to compare a newspaper in a large country with the same population as a small country to a national newspaper of a small country reporting on an event which is considerably large enough by that country's standards. Of course not everything in appear such as The Philadelphia Enquirer would make it onto Wikipedia. Neither would everything from The Irish Times. But the use of sources is only part of the argument and does not take into account the event itself. From the point of view of a large country like the US of course these measurements are probably non-notable. But by Irish standards events like this don't happen every day. 30,000 people is a considerable chunk of the population. What I have to ask is whether events in smaller countries are taken into context by those who are situated and have lived most of their lives in larger countries? And if they aren't what are we left with? An encyclopedia that is dominated with stories of events that occur in large countries with large populations because there are more people to be affected and therefore the event is on a larger scale and whereby anything that is relevant to smaller countries is systematically removed due to only a tiny handful of people being affected? What are the encyclopedic quotas for "bottled water"? Would 300,000 suffice? That would be nigh on 1/10 of the Irish population... yet if 300,000 Irish people had no water supply (a fairly significant occurrence on a national level I would imagine compared to, say, in the US or China or even compared to the UK) that argument could still be used against it. Which seems a little overprotective. --Candlewicke (Talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on some of the rationale given to date both for deleting and for keeping, I've done some cleanup of the actual article in an attempt to see if our reasons remain the same after cleanup. The tone of the article has changed which might affect how we view it. Take a look. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. henrik•talk 18:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is..uh..this is something. This is a non-notable guild I guess, tied to some new-age spiritualism. Some of the individual members might be notable, but the guild itself, or organization, or whatever it is exactly isn't notable. Before anyone points to all the "sources" in the article, none of the sources outside of a blog from a science fiction writer, actually talk about the subject. Mostly they're citing real events which occurred, but its the article that ties them to the group, not the sources themselves. This was deleted and restored on the promise of sources, but this is a bloody mess. There is nothing here to justify keeping this article. The only thing that can be provided that references them is obscure blogs. Their one criticism comes from a comment that that science fiction author made on his blog post, not even the post itself. This is how obscure and far reaching they are to try and find sources which actually mention the group by name. We'll get this out of the way to start with: Afd is not a vote if you want to see the article kept provide some reliable sources which demonstrate significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, per WP:CORP. Available information is all promotional. The references in Reuters and Marketwatch come from press releases. Also, previously deleted under name Rimon Law Group, Inc. John Nagle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination (PROD, de-PROD, re-PROD). First PROD stated: "Unclear notability, written in overly promotional tone". De-PROD (by me) edit summary stated: "further reading section added with link to 'media about Foundation'; items here can be brought into this article to support notability as reliable sources". Second PROD stated: "notability". Second PROD permalink is also the version current at the time of nomination here at AfD. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Any subsequent discussion about merging to Champagne socialist, chattering classes, liberal elite, etc is not something for AFD to determine, although it strikes me as a good idea worth exploring. fish&karate 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to lack notability, seems like a simple dictionary definition. — Realist2 00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which in English translated by bablefish :La « gauche caviar »… Est-ce une fausse gauche qui dit ce qu’il faut faire et qui ne fait pas ce qu’elle dit ? Une tribu frivole et tartuffe qui aime le peuple et se garde bien de partager son sort ? Pis encore, est-ce qu’elle n’introduirait pas, en douce, les réflexes des classes bourgeoises au sein du mouvement progressiste ? Ces gens-là seraient des traîtres, tout simplement.
Dans un pamphlet polémique et historique, Laurent Joffrin analyse ce phénomène apparemment superficiel qui a joué un grand rôle et souvent fait la différence dans le jeu politique, en France comme ailleurs. La gauche caviar irrite, certes, mais constatons qu’elle a toujours reçu les renforts de nombreux bourgeois riches et éclairés. Qu’ils ont souvent dirigé des partis de gauche, servi la classe ouvrière, œuvré pour le progrès et qu’ils furent constamment pour les socialistes un éclaireur, une aide, un compagnon. De Voltaire à Zola, de Victor Hugo à Kennedy, de Philippe d’Orléans à Keynes, la gauche caviar a été composée d’hommes et de femmes de qualité, d’une efficacité décisive et qui eurent une fonction essentielle dans la marche des événements.
En 2006, qu’en est-il ? L’argent-roi depuis les années 1990 a entraîné derrière lui et dans les tourbillons de la mondialisation une gauche caviar qui s’est peu à peu coupée des réalités. Le reste de la population s’est replié dans la condamnation d’une modernité toujours plus injuste. Et la gauche caviar a abandonné son rôle de charnière, c’est-à-dire son rôle historique. Il faut sonner l’alarme pour fermer la porte à tous les populismes et séparer clairement les partisans du progrès et ceux du conservatisme. C’est le but de ce livre.
I won't clean up the translation - it is enough to to give the gist for the sake of this discussion. A reference in English to the book in the context of Ségolène Royal's failure to win against Sarkozy is at http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/royal_4110.jsp :The “left caviar”… Is this a false left which says what it is necessary to make and which does not do only it says? A frivolous tribe and sanctimonious hypocrite who loves the people and take care well not to share its fate? Worse still, wouldn't it introduce, into soft, the reflexes of the middle-class classes within the movement progressist? These people-there would be traitors, quite simply. In a polemical and historical lampoon, Laurent Joffrin analyzes this apparently surface phenomenon which played a great role and often made the difference in the political game, in France like elsewhere. The left caviar irritates, certainly, but note that it always received the reinforcements of many rich and lit middle-class men. That they often directed left parties, served the working class, works for progress and that they were constantly for the Socialists a scout, a help, a companion. Of Voltaire with Zola, of Victor Hugo in Kennedy, Philippe of Orleans with Keynes, the left caviar was made up men and women of quality, of a decisive effectiveness and who had an essential function in the walk of the events. In is 2006, qu ' in? The money-king since the years 1990 involved behind him and in the swirls of universalization a left caviar which cut realities little by little. The remainder of the population was folded up in the judgment of a modernity increasingly more unjust. And the left caviar gave up its role of hinge, i.e. its historical role. It is necessary to sound alarm to close the door with all the populisms and to clearly separate the partisans from progress and those of conservatism. It is the goal of this book.
As Laurent Joffrin, former editor of the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur (and soon to take over the ailing daily Libération), explains in his Histoire de la gauche caviar (History of the Caviar Left): these bobos (bohemian bourgeois) have all but forgotten about the people. Meanwhile, her probable opponent Nicolas Sarkozy seems only to know how to boss the people around in the name of security, order and controlling immigration.
Alternatively from La Libre Belgique - essentially a review of the book but a disussion also: http://www.lalibre.be/index.php?view=article&art_id=288175There had been the intellectual left, the left criticizes, the moderated left, the radical left… Since the Eighties, it there with the left caviar. This n' is more from now on one political positioning which colours l' membership of the left, c' is a sociocultural and economic marker. The Left caviar would be these rich, anonymous or known people who would have their entries in the circles of the capacity qu' it is economic, media, cultural or political, without necessarily in being and which would have a level or an easy way of life. This definition of course does not satisfy because, it does not comprise the moral share which is appropriate. The left caviar is inevitably middle-class with the warping direction of the term, it knows misery only d' in top and thus, for it, being of left, c' is to revolt comfortably. In fact, one reproaches those which l' one affuble of this nickname not to resemble those enough qu' they claim to defend and to miss sincerity and d' authenticity in their engagements.
It is quite obvious that the term exists and has been defined and discussed extensively - including its history and usage. There are sources available - the article should be kept and developed. --Matilda talk 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]The lawsuit of the left caviar
Eric de Bellefroid
26/05/2006
The fall of the elites progressists Frenchwomen magistralement dismounted by Laurent Joffrin
Director of the drafting of “Nouvel Observateur”, Laurent Joffrin enjoys for this reason d' noble and worthy expertise in what looks at the left caviar. This left which reads its newspaper d' access, and that this one observes very near in return.
Left in a remote exploration the phenomenon, it brings back qu' to us; there existed already in ancient Rome, and qu' a certain middle-class elite - even aristocratic - s' is attached for a long time to the cause of the popular classes. Thus it was seen with Voltaire, Fayette, Talleyrand or the duke d' Orleans, but still with Victor Hugo or Emile Zola, and even in the United States with president John F. Kennedy or in England with the brilliant economist John Maynard Keynes.
A USEFUL CASTE
If French socialism s' d' is ever prevailed; a less tradition ouvrierist, it owed it with proletarian masses which were pleased d' to have at their head of the chiefs able to dominate the line until over the plans cultural and intellectual. Also the left known as caviar caused it the vindication of this line as much as the hatred of l' extreme left. “Bringing the reinforcement d' one entregent and d' a competence, it was useful.”
But this n' is more the case, objects Laurent Joffrin. “The left caviar n' had ever lived with the people but it served it, what qu' one says. It l' gave up. It s' is put to think without him and even against him.” And that because, in the years 1990, l' money took its fol take-off. The financiarisation of l' economy, doped by the liberal internationalization, involved all the leading class in its morbidity.
Admittedly the left reformist, according to Joffrin, n' it does not have demerit of the working class and socialist values; it will have even humanized capitalism. While its historical assessment is sometimes brilliant, sometimes disappointing, but always honourable, the things thus are spoiled after 1990. Left of luxury, which was found so well in l' example of Pierre Mendès France, radical middle-class man, then will be found committal for trial.
THE TIME OF THE RIGOUR
The first years Mitterrand n' had however not been bad. “Technos” of the second left, Mauroy, Delors or Rocard, s' they s' were d' access évertués to implement the 110 proposals of the candidate-president, had negotiated since 1983 the salutary one “turning of the rigour”, ceasing cultivating the myth of the rupture with capitalism and fastening France with l' rather; Europe and with l' market economy...
(unindent) What I'm trying to say is that the phrase is no more than a synonym or a translation of, for instance, "Champagne Socialist". Do we have the French word for "libertarian" as an article? Of course not. How should this be any different? I wouldn't mind noting it as a French language expression of the concept if a unified article is created, but it has no particular notability as a separate article. A notable phrase, especially a foreign language one, would be one for which the phrase itself is discussed - i.e. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, which has been discussed specifically as a phrase in terms of its meaning, usage and from the point of view of linguistics as a tripartite slogan. Brilliantine (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Snow'ed in. No assertion of notability. CSD'ed twice, PROD'ed once. seicer | talk | contribs 02:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this pro dodgeball team is notable. Being mentioned in an article about a charity event doesn't cut it. Was speedied twice, with one contested prod.OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are for songs, not singles, and both of these songs already have articles. Very unlikely search term. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible conflict of interest, author is Emilia's own father and has only ever edited this article. "Emilia Dalby" gets 114 Google hits. Proposal for deletion was contested, so going to AfD instead. I vote delete. JIP | Talk 04:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]